Saturday, December 16

Open Letter to Lexington Judge, Honorable Ernesto Scorsone

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

I have been following the false arrests of Pleas Lucian Kavanaugh for some time now. I recently re-posted Lucian’s blog detailing the shenanigans that he has dealt with in his most recent attempt at freedom. This has led to some interesting new developments.

The police officer that accused Lucian has been reprimanded. Detective Elizabeth Adams was charged with unsatisfactory performance and violation of DOP Gen. Order 73-2H Operational rule 1.11. Her punishment is 40 hours suspension without pay and an employee development program to be completed within 6 months. I don’t know about you but that leads me to question the reliability of her testimony and decision to single out Mr. Kavanaugh.

Bobby Gullette just filed a motion to put Lucian in jail until trial (February 23) because of what he wrote in his blog and I re-posted. He even submitted a photocopy of his blog into the record. Lucian has court today, November 19, at 1pm to decide what Scorsone is going to do.

Lucian has the right to air his case and/or write about it on the internet. Gullette’s attempt to punish him for this should be considered a First Amendment violation.

What follows is a letter from Mr. Kavanaugh to the judge in this case, Ernesto Scorsone:

Wednesday, November 17, 2010A Letter to the Judge

While bias is understood to be an intrinsically human characteristic, that urge to presume on the basis of often erroneous information such as criminal history and passing innuendo, one can only hope that Lady Justice’s eyes remain shrouded as they should and implore that the prosecution and the defense be regarded equally so that no quarter be provided Mr. Gullette which isn’t summarily endowed upon myself as well.  It seems a most humble and reasonable request; a mere reiteration of the most fundamental inherence of any worthwhile legal system.

Which isn’t to suggest that one good foul deserves another or any such twist of illogic, but only that in the totality of this specific circumstance, it is difficult to fathom how one could arrive at the conclusion that my incarceration is the proper remedy for an isolated incident of inconvenient scheduling by arbiters. 

Furthermore, if the respective sides are to be held to an even remotely comparable standard, then it is noteworthy that Mr. Gullette has failed to appear at multiple appointments during the course of the last year without so much as a verbal reprimand or even an apology.  

This most recent mishap, for which I am currently held responsible, is more accurately, a hybrid of both the prosecutor’s failure to appear on November 4th and a rather perplexing failure to acknowledge my lack of availability on November 8th. 

If the court will pardon the insistence, I deliberately submitted that I would be out of town in order to avoid the very dilemma in which I presently find myself.  That the point has gone unnoticed and that I came to be regarded as the primary culprit of this mishap contradicts even the most unrefined conception of fairness and alludes to a major point of concern in my mind—

It has been the experience that my extensive involvement with the Lexington Police Department has served to disrepute me among certain members of the local establishment.  Incidentally, the suspicion has been confirmed on several occasions over the years by a myriad of officials, both on and off the record, to include a former member of the judiciary.  And while it would be far from me to insist that such is the case in this particular example, I must admit to regard the question with no small measure of trepidation.

Studies have highlighted the multitude of challenges confronting an indigent defender in the criminal justice system ranging from the typical lack of access to resources and overloaded public advocates to unabashed disparities in rates of detainment pending trial, conviction and even capital punishment.  

In such a flagrantly lopsided system, a temperate arbitrator serves as perhaps the greatest barrier between a less fortunate socio-economic status and injustice.  To condone the denial of that single respite is to sanction the deprivation of justice altogether.  Without it, I am lost before the first word was ever uttered on my behalf.  And if the police have succeeded as the saboteurs of my life, then the judiciary should now play the role of my executioner.

But I remain hopeful that all has not been lost in a swift gust of disparaging conjecture and have faith that my liberty should not be stamped out with calloused indifference and shameless preferentiality.  I maintain my innocence and have no doubt that time will readily disprove my accusers as it unseats all things shoddily founded.  In the interim, I hope to be allowed the benefit of the doubt due a presumably innocent man and respectfully request to remain free until such time as a jury of my peers should decide otherwise. 

Sincerely,

Pleas Lucian Kavanaugh

Lucian’s letter is not meant to enflame the courts, Judge Scorsone nor prosecutor Gullette. It is merely a plea for fairness and consideration. Lucian is no threat to society. The court is in no danger of Lucian attempting to flee and fail to face his trial.

Honorable Judge Scorsone please show the wisdom of Solomon and use your bench to ensure justice not punishment. Lucian, I believe the evidence will show, is innocent of the charges brought against him. One mistake navigating the mazes of the criminal justice system should not mean Lucian’s loss of freedom until his trial date of February 23d.

Lucian’s point is well taken. Members of the airport board, upper white middle-class, were treated with kid gloves even after being convicted of their crimes. Lucian has shown repeatedly that bias in the police department is the cause of his repeated arrests. His only crime, it could be said, is filing a civil suit against the city for false arrest. At least, it seems, elements in the police department think so.

Please allow Lucian the dignity of his freedom and the ability to fight his case until he can prove his innocence at trial.

Share.

About Author

Leave A Reply